In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dave Dykstra writes:
> Well the easier syntax only motivates me 90% to personally take the time to
> implement the option. If somebody can show a performance improvement that
> will be enough to clinch it for me. My initial motivation for implementing
> the optimization that was taken out in 2.4.0 was performance (which I
> hadn't measured), and when Tridge took it out he asked me to show him a
> performance gain to justify leaving it in I did some measurements then and
> couldn't pursuade myself. All I'm asking is for somebody to put a little
> effort into showing a modest performance difference.
Well, not to be pedantic here, but how do we measure performance of a
feature that isn't available yet? I guess my point is that Tridge's
objection to the optimization does not apply here, since this is
simply a new option rather than a rewrite of code that works already.
And the new option is there to make the program more user-friendly
rather than increasing performance.
-- Alberto
****************************************************************************
Alberto Accomazzi mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
NASA Astrophysics Data System http://adsabs.harvard.edu
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics http://cfawww.harvard.edu
60 Garden Street, MS 83, Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
****************************************************************************
